Anti Semitism and Islamophobia new enemies, old patterns

SAGE

Los Angeles,

London,

New Delhi,

Singapore,

Washington DC

Sabine Schiffer is head of the Media Responsibility Institute (IMV), Erlangen, Germany and author

with Constantin Wagner of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: a comparative analysis

(Wassertrüdingen, 2009).
Constantin Wagner researches Islam in European textbooks at the Georg Eckert Institute and

works for the IMV.

Race & Class

10.1177/0306396810389927 http://rac.sagepub.com

Anti-Semitism and

Islamophobia – new

enemies, old patterns

SABINE SCHIFFER and CONSTANTIN WAGNER

Abstract: The authors argue that to compare Islamophobia with anti-Semitism is

not to equate them. But finding some parallels might help German society to

combat a growing and dangerous anti-Muslim racism.

Keywords: Germany, Muslims, racism, Shoah, stereotypes

Across Europe activists and some academics are struggling to convey, both to their

governments and their countries at large, the understanding that anti-Muslim racism/

Islamophobia is now one of the most pernicious forms of contemporary racism and that

steps should be taken to combat it. Nowhere has that struggle been more difficult and

poignant than in Germany.

There, because of the necessary attempts to come to terms with the Nazi past and

understand the dimension of the Holocaust, the horror of any form of anti-Semitism can

blind people to new and different forms of racism. And even more than elsewhere, the

contradictions of the Middle East get transferred to internal discussions about a new

anti-Semitism.

Yet there are attempts in Germany both to use anti-Semitism as a comparative with

which to help understand Islamophobia and to expose the nature and extent of it. This

78 Race & Class 52(3)

has not been without problems, as exemplified in the case of Marwa al-Sherbini. On 1

July 2009, this Egyptian pharmacist (who wore the headscarf) was stabbed to death in a

Dresden courtroom by the man she was suing for having insulted her in a public park as

an ‘Islamist’, ‘terrorist’ and ‘whore’. In the ensuing tumult, bystanders were injured,

including her husband, who was shot and wounded by a police officer who misidentified

the assailant. Dr Sabine Schiffer of the Institute for Media Responsibility in Erlangen,

who suggested that negligence in the court structures (stemming from Islamophobia)

might have been a contributory factor in Marwa al-Sherbini’s death and the police

shooting of her husband, found herself the object of a charge of slander and facing a court

case.

Below she and colleague Constantin Wagner examine the issues which emerged

around the highly contested conference held by the Berlin-based Centre for the Study of

Anti-Semitism on ‘The Muslim as Enemy, the Jew as Enemy’.

Time and again, the comparison of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia/anti-Muslim

racism generates public angst. The high point of this disquiet in Germany sur-

rounded the conference ‘Feindbild Muslim – Feindbild Jude’ (The Muslim as

Enemy, the Jew as Enemy) organised by the Berlin-based Zentrum für Antisemi-

tismusforschung (Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism) in December 2008.

This reaction to such a comparison is understandable and justified to the

extent that there can be real doubts as to whether the horrors of genocidal anti-

Semitism – the Nazi Holocaust – should be relativised (that is, on the moral

level) and there could be grounds for suspecting that to mention both phenom-

ena in the same breath comes from faulty analysis. For example, if someone

claimed that Muslims today were in the same position as Jews had been under

Nazi rule. However, it is inappropriate to play Jews and Muslims off against

each other as objects of racist discourses; to deny the existence of this new phe-

nomenon of Islamophobia, which does indeed exist, or to dismiss as trivial all

expressions of racism that fall short of total barbarism.

To compare is not to equate, as Micha Brumlik (a famous pedagogue who

analyses issues of Jewish identity, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism) and others

have repeatedly emphasised. Quite the contrary. When comparing, one natu-

rally also examines the differences between two things. To equate anti-Semitism

and Islamophobia would not only be a moral problem, but an analytical one as

well. But at the same time, reality forces those of us who deal with racism and

seek to combat it to consider the phenomenon of Islamophobia. And, to the

extent that there are parallels, why should we not try to learn from the findings

of research on anti-Semitism?

A few parallels and differences will be examined below. In so doing, it seems

useful to distinguish between the analytical/conceptual level on the one hand

and the empirical level on the other.

Islamophobia
There can be no doubt that, empirically, a phenomenon exists that we describe

as ‘Islamophobia’ and others describe as ‘anti-Muslim racism’ or ‘hostility to

Schiffer and Wagner: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia 79

Islam’. One criticism of the term ‘Islamophobia’ has been that it defames opponents

of Islamist movements. But even if it is true that the term can be instrumental-

ised, that is not sufficient cause to stop using it. After all, ‘racism’, too, has vary-

ing definitions, and is occasionally used in highly problematic ways. This does

not mean that there is no point in continuing to use the term, and certainly would

not justify denying its very existence.

Looking at critical portrayals of Muslims from an anti-racist perspective, there

can be no doubt that Islam is openly being attacked as Islam, and Muslims are

openly being attacked as Muslims. The same applies to physical violence.

Islamophobes often try to legitimise their racism by arguing that they have

nothing against ‘foreigners’ in general, and even add to their credentials by

explaining they are ‘pro-Israeli’; the problem, they explain, is Muslims. Such

Islamophobia has recently begun to be studied in Germany and reported in a

number of published pieces on racism and anti-racism.

Given the enormous popularity of blogs such as Politically Incorrect, which

publishes nothing but racist incitement specifically against Muslims, it is unde-

niable that there is a racism that is directed primarily at (supposed) Muslims.

The known racist blogs are merely the tip of the iceberg, and can build on very

widespread, historically based anti-Muslim resentments.

Although many images and points are familiar elements of ‘anti-immigration’

discourse and thus recognisable as elements of racism, the empirical phenome-

non of ‘Islamophobia’ is not entirely coextensive with the definition of ‘racism’

(to the extent that there is a universally valid definition of the term). This is

because centuries-old anti-Muslim views inform, shape and extend the current

discourse. This gives anti-Muslim racism a specificity that distinguishes it from

other racisms.

Furthermore, Islamophobia can be considered a new form of racism, a

‘cultural racism’. The target of Islamophobia is not an imagined ‘race’, but a

group perceived as a religious community. It is easier to incite hatred using sup-

posed cultural as opposed to ‘racial’ characteristics and this also affects the

intensity and nature of the ‘necessary resistance’.

Anti-Semitism
Although anti-Semitic attitudes are much more heavily stigmatised in post-Nazi

Germany than other forms of racism, it is by no means true that there is no

longer any anti-Semitism. On the one hand, there are phenomena known

to researchers as ‘secondary anti-Semitism’ and ‘structural anti-Semitism’.

‘Secondary anti-Semitism’ refers to the cultivation of resentments against Jews

not just by reference to the traditional prejudices that continue to exist, but also

by using new motifs. One example of this is the idea that Jews, allegedly, pre-

vent Germany from ‘putting its past behind it’. This is an ‘updated’ form of tra-

ditional accusations, such as greed and lust for power. Jews are once again

painted as disrupting German national identity - but this time through

Vergangenheitsbewältigung (the process of coming to terms with the [Nazi] past).

80 Race & Class 52(3)

‘Structural anti-Semitism’ refers to ideas that are not explicitly directed at

Jews, but are similar to anti-Semitic ideas in their concepts and argument. One

example of this is the differentiation between and personification of ‘money-

grubbing’ financial capital and ‘working’ productive capital (this refers to

Hitler’s terms ‘raffendes/schaffendes Kapital’). This personalising and abbreviation

of Marxist social criticism is structurally anti-Semitic and can also promote hos-

tility towards Jews.

On the other hand, there are still explicitly anti-Semitic statements being made

and attacks taking place. In 2008, 1,089 anti-Semitic crimes were recorded in

Germany. Between 2000 and 2008, approximately 470 desecrations of Jewish

cemeteries were recorded. Approximately 10 per cent of all Germans agree with

anti-Semitic statements, such as that Jews have too much influence, Jews are

more likely to use underhanded methods than others, or that Jews are peculiar

and do not quite fit in with ‘us’.

While such views may not be held across the board, there is a definite

tendency for abuse of Jews to be expressed less openly and explicitly than other

prejudices. In Germany, there is a stigma attached to propounding clear anti-

Semitic views and to attacks on Jews (as Jews) – although this taboo is occasion-

ally broken. Post-Shoah, anti-Semitism in Germany is mostly indirect,

overwhelmingly in the form of secondary and structural anti-Semitism. Muslims,

on the other hand, are abused more openly than any other marked group.

To claim that fear of Muslims – unlike fear of Jews – is legitimised by referring

to Islamic fundamentalism, does not pass muster. This use of alleged fact is, in

itself, racist, because it rests on a fundamental, racist generalisation – the acts of

very few individuals are explained in terms of their religious background and

then attributed collectively to all Muslims. This group is evaluated based on the

accumulation of (negative) facts. This pattern is familiar from other racist dis-

courses, including, in particular, anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic discourse is the

example par excellence of how an apparently coherent racist system – which

appears to be regularly confirmed – can arise over centuries.

Parallels, similarities – and divergences
Collective constructions, dehumanisation, misinterpretation of religious

imperatives (proof by ‘sources’), and conspiracy theories are the patterns that

we find in both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic discourses. The frighteningly

clear parallels are unmistakable when one analyses styles of argument and

even images. To an extent, the exact same metaphors and ideas are used to

incite hatred against Muslims as were and are used to incite hatred against

Jews. This can be seen in the many parallel terms, such as ‘Islamisation’ and

‘Judaisation’.

Particularly in times of crisis, identity can be constructed by designating sub-

jects and groups that allegedly constitute an internal and/or external threat as

‘foreign’. While it was already a classic anti-Semitic motif in the nineteenth cen-

tury that ‘the Jews’ identified with ‘their race’ and not with the country of which

Schiffer and Wagner: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia 81

they were citizens, we see a similar motif in the discussions of ‘Muslim parallel

societies’. This goes so far as to reactivate the clearly anti-Semitic metaphor of ‘a

state within a state’, this time in relation to Muslims. In this way, the fact that

one belongs to a religious community becomes a total identification, as if ‘being

Muslim’ were the sole and decisive factor explaining all of a Muslim person’s

actions and attitudes.

Despite the commonalities in the arguments and argumentational styles,

there is a difference on the conceptual and analytical level between the internal

logic of ‘anti-Semitism’ and of ‘Islamophobia’.

Both Jews and Muslims have historically been perceived as a danger for

‘the Christian West’, though in differing ways. The ‘Turks at the gates of

Vienna’ (part of collective memory) has long been a popular motif both in

relation to the immigration of Muslims and with regard to ‘Islamisation’. The

Moors in Spain were always ‘foreign’ in the sense of ‘outsiders’. Opposing

them and driving them out was not only permissible, it was required. Thus,

they fit the classic notion of the foreigner in the racist worldview – the external,

visible enemy. Jews, on the other hand, were primarily viewed as an ‘internal’

enemy. Modern anti-Semitism faced an enemy which was ‘invisible’ – because

of assimilation. This was combined with the idea of destroyers from within

who needed to be exterminated rather than driven out. Thus, the Crusades

were directed against an actual and/or perceived external enemy, while

anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism were directed inward. In this regard, anti-

Semitism is located on a different historical continuum from Islamophobia.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Muslims tend to be viewed as inferior,

while anti-Semites generally view Jews as superior. Thus, Jews were always

considered the representatives of modernism, whether in the form of liberalism,

capitalism, or communism, while Muslims are perceived as ‘backwardness’

incarnate. Here it can be seen that both Muslims and Jews are seen as the coun-

terpart to an ideal, though in different ways. Additionally, there are differences

with regard to explanatory content. Anti-Semitic discourse seeks to explain not

only a part of reality (as do other racist discourses) but the entire world. Thus,

‘the Jew’ can be seen to be pulling the strings of virtually any evil: capitalism and

communism, Washington and Moscow, godlessness and the most devout faith.

Anti-Semitism is a total, universal theory.

It is important to understand these differences in order to be able to unpick

and combat the respective analyses. However, the differences in resentment –

against inferiors, on the one hand, from those perceived as omnipotent, on the

other, between the external and internal enemy – relate to a conceptual level.

Things are not always this clear in (racist) reality.

Empirical shifts
Although this analytical distinction still tends to be valid, there have recently

been empirical shifts that make it more and more necessary to use findings from

the study of anti-Semitism to analyse Islamophobia.

82 Race & Class 52(3)

In addition to being represented as the external enemy, Muslims appear

more and more as the ‘internal’ enemy in racist discourse, a figure most

clearly personified, even today, by ‘the Jew’. This can be seen in the treatment

of Islamism as a matter of internal security. A growing number of Muslims

are German citizens, and therefore no longer ‘foreigners’ or ‘external enemies’.

Additionally, more and more Muslims are targeted by accusations that they

are ‘in camouflage’, particularly those who seek to participate actively in civil

society or professional life. They are presumed to be loyal to ‘their own

group’, based on their religion. This breaks through the traditional classifica-

tion, with Muslims now being promoted to an ‘internal enemy’ in the para-

noid imagination.

The idea of the superior privileging of the ‘Other’ is applied more and more

frequently to Muslims. The debates about ‘special rights’, whether with regard

to the right to wear a headscarf at work or participation at school, show no sign

of stopping. Both in popular debates and in various publications, the idea is

being expressed that Germany is being ‘Islamised’, with substantial financial

support from the ‘Near East’, through the purchasing of land, building of

mosques, and influence in the media.

Islamophobic conspiracy theories are quite popular in the relevant blogs.

These conspiracy theories do indeed seek to explain various political develop-

ments, and not just individual phenomena. While a closed anti-Semitic world-

view begins from an attempt to explain the world, in the case of Islamophobia,

there is the tendency to explain more and more facts from social life by refer-

ence to the religious background of Muslims. Thus, any number of problems,

from youth violence to homophobia, appear to be explicable by reference to

‘Islam’.

Based on these shifts and adoptions, we must acknowledge that other marked

groups may also fall into the role historically assigned primarily to Jews – an

element of negation that destroys healthy collectives. This requires, first of all, a

group that is ‘marked’ as such. Today, we see that actual and apparent Muslims

are perceived ‘as Muslims’ with increasing intensity. Concepts like ethnic plu-

ralism (towards the Right end of the spectrum) and multiculturalism (which

tends to be used on the Left) can even help along this racist process of marking

out a religious group as ‘the Other’.

This practice of marking, in itself, must be understood as a racist thought pat-

tern that leads to further steps of attributing negative characteristics, defamation

and discrimination. The act of physical racial violence carried out by an indi-

vidual is the end product of a whole process of racialisation which begins with

the stereotypes that society as a whole generates and perpetuates through laws,

the media, the education system, and so on, in popular discourse.

Conclusion
Among other things, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia differ in post-Nazi

Germany with regard to the degree of openness with which they are expressed.

Schiffer and Wagner: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia 83

And, in terms of ‘traditional’ interpretations of racism, they have separate – one

might say complementary – functions. In this regard, it is important to examine

the differences in how anti-Semitism and Islamophobia operate analytically; this

also helps in discovering the ways in which they shift and how they get adopted.

Both phenomena exist empirically, and have a function as racist – false –

explanations of the world.

It is obviously absurd to claim that Muslims today are in the same situation as

Jews were ‘back then’. In comparing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, we should

not relativise the Nazi Holocaust – instead, the goal should be to recognise racist

mechanisms before even the threat of a comparable situation arises. The thesis

that the Nazi Holocaust, while historically singular, is capable of repetition is

not a new one in the study of anti-Semitism and the Shoah. The fact that we must

assume that a total catastrophe is capable of repetition must be treated sepa-

rately from the fact that the Shoah is a historically singular phenomenon, and

that victims and perpetrators can be named specifically.

However, memory alone will not suffice, particularly because we know today

that the destruction of the Jews in the Third Reich would not have been possible

without a decades-long and centuries-old preparatory anti-Semitic discourse.

Based on the historical imperative to deconstruct racist discourse before it is too

late, a racist discourse that threatens to become highly dominant in society must

be exposed as such. To this end, we must also expose and analyse the occasion-

ally frightening parallels to anti-Semitic discourse. While there is still evidence

of anti-Semitic explanatory styles and resentments, anti-Islamic voices are

becoming more and more influential in public discourse.

The achievement in the study of anti-Semitism of examining Jewry and

anti-Semitism separately must also be transferred to other racisms, such as

Islamophobia. We do not need more information about Islam, but more infor-

mation about the making of racist stereotypes in general. In order to do this, it

is necessary to understand that the ideas and images of a ‘foreign group’ say

more about the group that produces them than about the group marked as the

‘out group’.

References

1 See Liz Fekete, ‘Germany: freedom to speak on racism under threat’, IRR News (23 February

2010); ’Freedom of speech upheld for German academic’, IRR News (31 March 2010).

2 See for example Sabine Schiffer, 2005, Die Darstellung des Islams in der Presse (Würzburg,

Ergon, 2005); S. Schiffer and C. Wagner, Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – a comparative

analysis (Wassertrüdingen, HWK, 2009); Iman Attia (ed.), Orient- und Islambilder (Münster,

Unrast, 2007); Thorsten G. Schneiders (ed.), Islamfeindlichkeit (Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften, 2009); Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Islamfeindschaft und ihr Kontext (Berlin,

Metropol Verlag, 2009); Kay Sokolowksky, Feindbild Moslem (Berlin, Rotbuch, 2009).

3 This was examined in the article on ‘The portrayal of Muslims in the German media’ see <http://

www.migration-boell.de/web/diversity/48_2529.asp>; <http://www.migration-boell.de/

web/diversity/48_1231.asp>; <http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/PEULKO,0,Der_Islam_

in_deutschen_Medien.html ff>.

84 Race & Class 52(3)

4 It is impossible – even theoretically – to dispense with the element of alleged belonging to a

group perceived as a ‘race’: thought through to its conclusion, this racial/biological framing

posits a biological solution – physical extermination. The alleged belonging based on cultural

concepts at least theoretically allows for ‘defection’. Unlike anti-Semitic projections, anti-Muslim

racists do not construct ‘Muslims’ as an alleged ‘blood community’ or ‘race’, or claim that this

racial background is responsible for the negative characteristics. This is, however, an essen-

tial element of genocidal anti-Semitism. Unlike anti-Semitic ideology, Muslims have at least

a theoretical possibility for ‘distancing’ themselves from certain phenomena. However, this

is increasingly coming into question. Although wars abroad and discriminatory practices at

home are justified using Islamophobic discourse, which is occasionally frighteningly similar

to anti-Semitic metaphor and imagery, the complete physical destruction of Muslims is not

the goal of anti-Muslim racists, especially since ‘Islam’ is generally perceived as an external

enemy.

5 See Arbeitsstelle Rechtsextremismus und Gewalt (o.J.), ‘Antisemitismus in Deutschland 2009:

eine Chronik’, p.3, <http://arug.de/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/

gid,27/>.